Talk:Thorpe affair/Archive 1

Quotations and other reverted changes
Your &#91;'s] recent edits on this article have been reverted. There may or may not be merit in some of your proposed changes, and I and other editors with an interest in this article will be happy to discuss them. This article has in the not-too-distant past been through various review procedures, including FAC, in which a good number of editors participated and approved its promotion. You should respect that, even though it is accepted that the article is not inviolable and is capable of improvement. You know as well as I, however, that the simple assertion of a "right to edit", when the edits are likely to be contentious, is a sure-fire route to trouble; I assume that is not what you want. The way to go about improving the article is through civil discourse on the talkpage, not through imposed changes and aggressive and contemptuous edit summaries. I am ready for that discussion whenever you care to instigate it in a proper, civil manner. Brianboulton (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC) [Aside about the comma non-issue: Your claim that it is "sub-standard" in British English is provably false; it is just commonly dropped in British, as in American. WP is not written in news style, so it should not be dropped here, since it results in ambiguities. But this is something to address some other time, if anyone ever gives a damn about that, which is dubious. For the record, I'm not disputing your reversion of the comma change, I'm disputing your no-rationale reversion of the substantive changes, and using comma-related handwaving as a smokescreen for restoring a version that has multiple policy problems, as part of your campaign against MoS compliance at FAC.] — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that I gave very specific policy-based reasons for the changes in question, and someone did a blunderbuss mass-revert with no actual rationale just an objection to a comma (WTF?) on the basis that it's "American" (how is the Oxford comma American?), and with vague handwaving that suggests that because a problem was not identified before that the text can never be changed to address one (see WP:OWN, WP:VESTED), I hope you and SchroCat are prepared to make policy-based arguments for keeping those quote boxes and other serious problems. I'm entirely happy to take this to WP:FAR, otherwise. I made the edits in lieu of going that route in the first place.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Why don't we start with either of you actually choosing a specific change to address, and why you think the change was wrong?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Clumsily mass-reverting again with no rationale fails the D in WP:BRD. If you do that again, I'll simply take this article and its large raft of problems to WP:FAR since you refuse to engage in substantive discussion and are just editwarring.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I was in mid response when you reverted. Per WP:BRD and WP:STATUS QUO I suggest you discuss your proposed changes before trying to force them onto the article again. – SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. Please don't edit war to try and force your version onto the page (see WP:BRD, WP:STATUS QUO, etc). 2. Just because you claim "serious policy rationales", doesn't mean there are any (and there are none here). 3. Why do you have to be so uncivil to start a thread with an accusation of OWN? Someone disagreeing with your edit isn't OWNership, it's because there are problems with your edit. 4. The 'comma' was not the serial comma (although it's poor practice to chance something consistent just on the basis of your own preference). The otiose comma use you have edit warred over Is the American habit of adding commas after sentence openings (eg. "After three days,): that's sub-standard in a Br Eng article. 5. The quote boxes are, IMO, beneficial. In subjects where free images are unavailable, they break up the walls of text and aid readability. – SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The comma is an obvious red herring; please try to focus. No one cares about the comma but you, and no one believe you reverted hours of my work to change one character. Denial that there are policy problems when I already spelled out what they were is not an argument, it's a handwave and proof by assertion. So is asserting "there are problems with your edit" but not identifying any.  If all you do is pretend to present an argument without doing one, then WP:BRD is already satisfied and your reversion cannot stand.  You are dodging, because you do not have an actual rationale. For the fourth time, I ask you to spell out a specific objection to a specific change and defend that objection with an actual rationale, based in policy.  This is the last time I will ask before opening a WP:FAR on this mess. And stop reverting other changes that are not related to that objection, if you ever bother to articulate a clear, specific, and defensible one; your WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to me in particular, which began out the blue about a month ago, as part of your perpetual tagteam with Cassianto, triggered over nothing but me daring to disagree with you on a similar matter at FAC, is not going to slide.  Re: OWN – If you do not wish to give the impression of over-controlling a page about which you feel proprietary, then stop knee-jerk reverting and avoiding substantive discussion in an effort to over-control a page about which you seem to feel proprietary.  "It's beneficial" without any  explanation of what's beneficial about it = WP:ILIKEIT, and does not address any of the policy and guideline concerns that were raised.  It doesn't matter how beneficial you think it is to introduce PoV, OR and other problems into an article, policy does not permit you to do it, much less to editwar to force it back in after another editor has flagged it as a policy problem.  If an article needs structure work to make it more readable, then introduce more section headings, paragraph breaks, etc., and arrange the material better; we do not grossly promote the views of one party to a legal dispute, move material to a position in the article where it makes no sense at all and is confusing to readers, or insert trivial cruft the content of which is redundant in part and totally irrelevant noise in other part.  And normal block quotations already serve to break up block of text. This has nothing at all to do with "[my] own preferences"; it's entirely about how to write encyclopedic material, not make a bombastic, flighty, disorganized, but decorated blog.
 * What a charming little editor you are. Is it at all possible—as Brian requested in your talk page—that you could at least make a vague attempt to be civil? Given what you have written so far, and the lies it contains, I am honestly not sure that is possible, but at least give it a go once in a while...
 * "The comma is an obvious red herring; please try to focus. No one cares about the comma but you". Not even close to the truth. I have reverted several other editors (largely American) for trying to force US comma use into a British English article. It is the height of bad faith for you to try and say I have acted inappropriately. It is you who have acted inappropriately for edit warring to force it back in, even after my first edit summary pointed out it was problematic. And yes, I have seen other editors—better than me and you—also revert such otiose use.
 * (re the supposed 'policy problems') "it's a handwave and proof by assertion": that's exactly what you have done by saying 'there are problems', and throwing up an alphabet of links, but they hold no water to any rationale examination.
 * "You are dodging, because you do not have an actual rationale. For the fourth time, I ask you to spell out a specific objection to a specific change and defend that objection with an actual rationale": did you actually bother to read what I wrote? Aside from the fact that I have pointed objections, as you are the one trying to make changes, it is inherent on you to produce statements about what you don't like.
 * re accusations of BATTLEGROUND, OWN, TAG TEAMING, etc: take your tendentious baiting elsewhere. I have absolutely no desire to have to discuss anything with editors like you, but if I absolutely have to, please don't bore the living daylights out of me with your ill-judged trolling and try to remain civil.
 * "your campaign against MoS compliance at FAC": yet another untruth there (something of a commonplace occurrence in your statements toward or about me, but there you go). As put it recently, "The MOS is intentionally formulated as a vague guideline rather than policy, and is not and never has been Holy Writ. It's routine to disregard it provided the person doing the disregarding can justify why they're disregarding it."
 * If you would like to outline why you think your changes are superior to the extant version, we can discuss each of them in turn, but, as Brian has already asked, please at least try to retain a veneer of civility in your response. – SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This talkpage is for discussion about the article, not for editors to carry on a discussion about behaviour, you can do that elsewhere. You are both here, which should mean that you are halfway towards working collaboratively on improving the article. Start now please.Graemp (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggested changes
I've read the above, and looked carefully at each of the changes which Mr McCandlish proposes. He originally made all of these on 18 August, and in the comments below I identify them by their timestamp in the revision history.
 * 15.45: a minor edit that presents no problem
 * duly reinstated. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 16.03: removal of the quotebox giving Thorpe's reaction to his acquittal, and incorporating the content into the text. I know that Mr McCandlish has strong views on this usage of quoteboxes, views not widely shared in the community. There is a current Rfc discussing this very matter, to which he has contributed copiously and I more briefly. We should see what comes out of that discussion before coming to any decision here. In the meantime I reject McCandlish's assertion on his talkpage (not repeated here) that this box is "steering the reader brow-beatingly to Thorpe's dismissive view that the case against him was frivolous" - I don't think any intelligent reader would draw that conclusion. Rather it highlights Thorpe's smug complacency at the verdict, in juxtaposition with the increasingly damning text to its left.
 * I don't intend to remove this quotebox unless mandated to do so after the conclusion of the Rfc. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This should not be about you or your intentions, Brian. I agree they need to go.  If the quotes are useful, they should be put into a reasonable context. Dicklyon (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me put it slightly differently. SMcCandlish talks of a community consensus that disbars the  use of Qboxes as in this article, but this consensus is clearly evolving. Qboxes are widely used in Wikipedia across dozens of articles, inc. around 20 percent of recent FAC promotions. See also the views of Ruhrfisch and Hamiltonstone, given below. It is possible, even likely, that as a result of   current discussions a  fresh consensus will emerge. It makes sense to await that decision before acting here; if my preference falls outside that consensus, then of course I will comply with it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If the consensus is evolving (see RfC at WT:MOS) that consensus discussion is where it should evolve; it must not be an article-by-article battleground to keep deying the current codified consensus. The FAC thing is a red herring; some old FAs, that pre-date MOS:BQ, had such quote boxes from Ye Olde Tymes. And they often have self-apointed defenders who resist almost all changes to the article. Meanwhile, certain parties have been heavily lobbying FA processes to ignore current guidelines and instead match pre-guideline FA formatting This is ass-backwards. The old FAs need to be brought into line with current standards, an ongoing process in all articles, but one slowed down by misguided stonewalling at GAs and FAs.  Finally, the "try to bloc-vote around the RfC" antics at WT:MOS are not going to work. No admin in their right mind would close that poll in favor of promoting a particular quote box template to magical immunity from guideline and policy compliance (and if it happened, such a result would be overturned). It is possible that something needs to be done to produce a consistent block quotation style that is more distinct from surrounding text. That's a consensus discussion, not a vote.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * 16.05: removal of the "Bunnies" infobox as, to quote McCandlish's edit summary, "excessive quotation and highlighting of irrelevant trivia". Sadly, this comment betrays a depressing ignorance of the Thorpe affair. Far from being irrelevant trivia, the publication of that letter, with its revelation of a much more intimate relationship with Scott than Thorpe had previously admitted, was the key factor that did for him. It is absolutely essential that this wording be included in the article – if there was a free version of the original letter available as an image, of course I would use it; as it is, the box  version is the best available substitute.
 * As above with brass knobs on Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 16.10: a minor unproblematical prose adjustment
 * reinstated with an additional tweak


 * 16.12: change in the wording of a heading. Not problematic
 * On reflection, the previous main section is entitle "Developments", and to call this one "Later developments" seems dull and unimaginative. This section is about revelations: Scott's outburst, Gleadle's letters purchase, the Dinshawe subterfuge, the "Bunnies" later. So the section title should remain "Revelations"


 * 16.14: comma issue. The original is more acceptable in Brit Eng, and a slight adjustment of wording in the proposed change introduces some awkward possessive apostrophes. Better stick to the original.
 * 16.15: typo fix
 * 16.20: subdivision of the "Verdict and aftermath" section into two separate "Acquittal" and "Aftermath". I've no strong feelings about this, without seeing it as an improvement.
 * Tried it and it looks wrong to divide this into two level-2 sections. It remains in one section but I've changed the title to "Acquittal and aftermath"
 * 16.20/21: Comma issues. The American comma style is inappropriate for this article.
 * How is it American style to put a comma into "In April 1967 Scott ..." to help the reason parse it quickly and unambiguously? None of the guide discussions that I have looked at about setting of introductory phrases with commas mention British versus American styles; what do you have on that?  Dicklyon (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Where the introductory phrase is quite short (as is the case in the diffs I've looked at), the "minimal punctuation" style in BrEng and some other variants (eg. CanEng) supports the omission of the comma. See for example 7.14, a Canadian guide. US style guides usually require a comma in these cases, AFAIK. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see a difference between that Canadian guide and the American ones I've looked at. The comma after short introductory phrases is at the writer's option, with the reader's interest in mind, to cut off the ambiguity of parsing that might otherwise slow down the reader.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "After introductory adverbs and short phrases indicating time, frequency, location or cause, the comma is omitted unless needed to avoid ambiguity or add emphasis". In the cases under dispute here, there's no ambiguity requiring the insertion of a comma, and no emphasis needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The insertion of a comma after brief introductory phrases being at the writer's discretion, all that need concern us is whether the chosen option has been used consistently throughout the article. I will check on this. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Disagree. MoS does not require consistency on this point, and introducing it by removing commas would be detrimental. We want clarity, not robotic conformity.  Most of these constructions slow the reader down without the comma, and no British, etc., readers are confused by its presence, so the encyclopedic instead of "imitate British newspapers" approach is to include it. The omission is a journalistic style, found world-wide, not a national dialect matter at all. [I feel like I made this point before. Apologies if I'm repeating myself.]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * 17.19: removal of the "Auberon Waugh" quote box and incorporation of content in text. Waugh's comment is important because it was published before there was any real public awareness of Thorpe's plight and, as intended, immediately set tongues a-wagging. I think that the quote box is by far the neatest way of incorporating this quote in the article. A few minor textual changes were made with this edit, and these were unexceptional.
 * I'm leaving the quote box, per the above. The "unexceptional" minor edits are dealt with below. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

So of the various reverted edits, as far as I'm concerned the minor ones can be reinstated without fuss. I would like to see further (civil) discussion here on the other points, but I think we should await the outcome of the Rfc discussion   before any changes are made to the quote boxes. Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll amend the final part of the above comment to: "...before considering whether any changes are required to the quote boxes". Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See thread at WT:MOS on quote boxes (and that RfC is not likely to come to a clear conclusion because of how it was written). Previous claims that most block quotations in WP were using decorative quote templates were based on transclusion counts and did not distinguish mainspace usage from use on user pages, wikiproject pages, etc. When the usage stats are generated competently, MOS:BQ-compliant plain block quotation in articles is proven to utterly dwarf the usage of all quote-framing templates combined.  So, "McCandlish has strong views on this usage of quoteboxes, views not widely shared in the community" is false twice over; they're not my views, they're WP's editorial consensus, and they are obviously (this being necessarily tautological) widely shared in the editorial community. We can just have an RfC right here on these particular quote boxes. As I said in user talk, I don't care whether the issue gets resolved by FAR or RFC or what. It just needs to get resolved, and we're clearly not going to resolve it just between us. Your theory that using a big quote box to highlight Thorpe's views is some kind of  move is not likely to be accepted by any broad consensus. If I were rich, I would happily bet real money on that.  The "Bunnies" letter  excessive quotation of trivia.  The rambling content of the letter tells our readers absolutely nothing at all that they need to know that is is not already provided in the prose section, and it's a misuse of primary sourcing (actually just  primary sourcing).  Zero of it is encyclopedically relevant or even meaningful in any way to our readers other than the "Bunnies" sentence, which we already covered.  Your comment about the Waugh quote box is a straw man; I did not remove his quotation, I put it into context, and actually explained who he and his publication are so our readers can make sense of the article as they're reading it, instead of having to read it to the bottom, with confusions until they get there, finally find out, then start over to understand the material that made no sense the first time. The only thing at issue regarding it was the context-free quote-boxing presentation, which you've dodged. Meta-commentary on the nature and tone of this dispute: "I don't intend to remove this quotebox unless mandated to do so" – No one asked  to remove it, and you are not this article's Official Police Protection Detail. This is precisely the WP:OWN/WP:VESTED and WP:FILIBUSTER/WP:STONEWALL attitude that causes problems at FAs and gets them taken to WP:FAR. You also have no business dropping reminders to be civil, after coming to my talk page to make civility complaints (laced with 'I've already made up my mind to oppose you regardless what your arguments might turn out to be be'-style posturing), then peppering the above with insults directed at me personally, e.g. "I don't think any intelligent reader would draw that conclusion", "betrays a depressing ignorance", "dull and unimaginative", etc.  The only depressing conclusion to draw is that you need to read WP:KETTLE, WP:ENC, and WP:EDITING.  WP is not written for people who have any familiarity at all with a topic before they read our article on it, and our editors are both permitted and  to edit articles outside their areas of professional-level expertise. This is the only way that our articles end up written for a general audience, not for specialists writing for those who share their speciality already (a constant problem in medical, computer science, legal, and other "technical" articles, and – more to the point – those of a narrow "popular culture" interest, presupposing social pre-absorption of much of the topic's background and particulars). And what makes you so special with regard to this article, exactly? Are you the Cambridge Distinguished Professor of British Scandals?  If this question seems irritating or inappropriate, you now know the flavor of your own medicine. The assumption that someone has to have prior, deep knowledge of the Thorpe affair before reading or improving the article is a failure to remember why WP exists, for whom, and how it works.


 * Brian, Much as I admire your willingness to bring this to a speedy conclusion, I do have a problem with much of the other edits. For example, 17:19 edit has the following which do not, to me, meet FA levels:
 * "Further threats" to "Further threats, and hint of press scandal" reads like a newspaper, not an encyclopaedia
 * Yes, we don't need this level of detail in a section title. The possibility of press scandals was one of the threats Thorpe faced.Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No objection, if you think "threats" by itself is clear enough. I had considered that originally, but was concerned that the threat by the journo to "tell all" might not be perceived by the reader as a threat. I don't consider this a strong concern.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Thorpe/Josiffe friendship" to "Thorpe–Josiffe friendship": Thorpe–Josiffe looks like a double-barrelled surname
 * Agreed. The oblique generally means "and/or", which is inappropriate. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See MOS:DASH; an en-dash is used for a two-party relationship like collaborative or adversarial relationship (and this qualifies as both at different periods!). An oblique (slash) does tend to indicate "and/or" (you two seem to be talking past each other on this one), and the meaning of this construction is not "Thorpe and/or Josiffe", so a slash should  be used, even if MoS didn't already have a clear rule to use the en dash. "Thorpe–Josiffe" does  look like a hyphenated surname, and the reader already knows whom both of these surnames pertain to; hyphenated surnames never use an en-dash but (obviously) a hyphen: "Thorpe-Josiffe".  The slash would be appropriate, rather, for "Norman Josiffe/Scott", since this is in fact an and/or construction (he was known as Norman Jossife and/or Norman Scott in different places and periods).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You are right! I checked Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact to make sure. Will adjust accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "conflicted in his emergent sexuality: his homosexual". "Conflicted" isn't right and the use of the colon is sub-standard compared to the colon.
 * On reflection, "conflicted" may be the better choice. His problem was that his sexual feelings conflicted with his religious teachings, so I'll reinstate that. I agree about the misuse of the colon. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Conflicted" is exactly right, and the original wording choice was an impermissible attempt at mind-reading and psychological projection. "Use of the colon is sub-standard compared to the colon" does not parse.  There is nothing "substandard" about use of a colon here. If you are sure it is, then cite the standard.  I'm unaware of any style or grammar guide that will agree with you on this, and I own most of them published in the last 120 years or so.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "After further newspaper revelations" to "newspaper investigations": the investigations did nothing: it was the published revelations that were the problem
 * Yes I agree, it needs to be "revelations" Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Pick another word if you don't like "investigations". Publication of alleged facts and alleged letters cannot be called "revelations" in WP's own voice, since it's both a scandal-mongering PoV word, and an assertion of fact that allegations were definitely true when there is no conclusive proof in our hands that they were.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, "revelations" will do fine: "a surprising and previously unknown fact" (Oxford). As itemised above there were several of these: Gleadle, Dinshawe, "Bunnies", all of which udermined Thorpe's protestations of innocence, the last-named fatally. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding "The Freeman–Penrose narrative suggests the following course of events: Uncertain": aside from the capital, the first ten words are superfluous
 * Yes. The first sentence of the section makes it clear whose narrative we are following. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It does not at all make this clear and we cannot write articles in a way that extrapolates hypotheses from a source then re-present them to our own readers as known facts. There is nothing wrong with a capital letter there; when a full sentence follows a colon, that sentence is capitalized. Have you ever seen a style and grammar guide that says otherwise? Which one?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The capital issue is redundant, since the word now begins a sentence. I see no case for reinstating the additional words you want. The events that follow in the narrative are not solely Freeman and Penrose's version of events, they appear in every history of the affair and have not been contested. This section of the article is copiously referenced; there are limits to the extent to which we should mangle our prose just in case someone sniffs what they think might be an editorial observation. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Removal of "Sir" from before names
 * It is usual in British English to refer to High Court judges as "Sir..." As I recall, not a single book or article on the case omits the title when introducing him to the story. I don't mind losing the "Sir" from Hayward. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WP does not use such titles with names in routine references to individuals (though it is used for a peer in the lead of his/her own article when their name is first given, along with their post-nominals like OBE). See MOS:BIO.  Please read MOS:ENGVAR carefully. It does not mean "articles on  British subjects are written exactly like British newspaper articles", at all.  We follow conventions ("colour" vs. "color", "St" vs. "St.", etc.) of roughly national dialects of English on a strong-national-ties basis but  to the extent that they're arbitrary and we have no reason, e.g. one codified elsewhere in MoS, to prefer a uniform style with regard to something across all articles.  Not festooning names with honorifics is one of these site-wide style matters, as are using one quotation-mark style, and many others.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "festooning names with honorifics" is your trademark hyperbole; if I had referred to Cantley as "His Honour the Learned and Right Honourable Sir..." etc, you'd have a point, but a mere "Sir", in deference to British custom and usage? Still, it's not an issue I feel is worth fighting to the death for, so I'll de-knight him for the purposes of this article. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't MOS:HONORIFIC say "The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the subject of a biographical article, but are optional after that […] honorific titles should not be deleted when they are used throughout an article unless there is consensus."? Graham (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC) cc:
 * So it does! I misremembered. It appears to be at odds with the entire intent and purpose of MOS:HONORIFIC, though, so I suggest that consensus at this article should go against its usage here. It adds nothing encyclopedic to the material, which is not about what honors those mentioned parties have received.  We don't even add "Dr[.]", "Prof.", etc., before the names of academics and other experts, despite doing so being much more contextually justifiable that peppering the prose with "Sir"; it's just imitation of British news style, and it may bias the reader's perception. The "used throughout an article" requirement is impossible to verify without checking the citizenship and status of every single person named in the article. When used for a level of judge that is made up of peers, it redundant if we already note they're that kind of judge. And so on.  I can think of about a dozen problems with the guideline wording on this point (as well as an argument for when else such a title should be included than someone's lead and infobox), but that's another issue for another time and place, and I don't mean to belabour it here in any depth.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I must respectfully disagree. As many argued in the recent RfC at WT:NCRAN, the title "Sir" is seen to be part of a name just as the title of a peer is (at least in the context of the United Kingdom or other Commonwealth realms), unlike "Dr", "Mr", "Prof.", "The Hon.", "Her Excellency", etc. And as noted, "… not a single book or article on the case omits the title when introducing him to the story."
 * I would be curious to know if that is always the case. Although he was a peer (thus making the titling issue moot in his case), Frank Russell, Baron Russell of Killowen, refused the customary knighthood after his appointment to the High Court, so I would be curious to know whether there are others who did the same.
 * That's absolutely not the case. While it may be seen as such in the US, in the British context, I've seen it used in all sorts of sources, including academic publications. I don't think that's at all uncommon, in fact.
 * While you may believe that the MOS should be amended, I don't think this is the place to decide whether the provision fits in with the spirit of the rest of the document. And the MOS is clear on this point – without an explicit consensus, the article should retain the titles on first use. Graham (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "possibly jammed or possibly intentionally empty and intended as a scare tactic." is clumsy and puts into WP's voice something contentious.
 * Yes, this is editorial conjecture and should be omitted. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It does the exact opposite. The assertion that it happened because and only because it was jammed is utterly unprovable and original research; there are obviously two possibilities for why Jossife/Scott was not actually shot.  The conjecture is in the editor making up his/her own mind which it was.  An alternative to spelling out the possibilities is to simply remove any mention of reason or cause, since any reader should already understand this anyway. The article cannot retain the claim that the gun jammed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not accepted at all, but I will remove "apparently jammed" if it is the cause of such distress. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is just from the one edit (and is just part of the justification for my initial revert), and further changes need a careful examination. I would be happy to give my appraisal of the other edits made, but the onus is on the one seeking to implement changes to press their case. – SchroCat (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I should obviously have looked more carefully at the 17.19 edit before accepting these prose changes as unexceptional. Some are gross – thank you for pointing them out. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Of the several "17.19" edits not mentioned above, I have reinstated several into the article, as possible minor improvements. Others which I think did nothing or worsened the article, I have left out. Brianboulton (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the bone thrown, but it is insufficient for reasons I've outlined above. This article still has several WP:CCPOL problems.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a bone thrown in your direction, but a genuine attempt to deal with your various minor edits, by no means all of which were obviously "improvements". Remember WP:OAS.  As to your   question "what makes you so special with regard to this article, exactly?", well, I read the books, scoured libraries for sources, bought books I couldn't find in libraries, examined newspaper archives, searched the internet, etc etc etc; and when I thought I had the material, I spent weeks putting the article into shape before steering it through various review processes to get it featured. That is how many articles are written and developed, believe it or not; it's called commitment. None of this gives me ownership, but it does mean I have some stake in the article, recognised in the provisions of  WP:OAS. This is a policy you initially  breached on 22 August,  by trying to force major changes without prior talkpage discussion, and  you made the situation worse by your provocative and opinion-loaded edit summaries, a quite unnecessary discourtesy (yes, I know you sort-of apologised for the latter on your talkpage, but by then the damage was done}. Much of the subsequent hostility on this page flows from your initial belligerence, something I find hard to fathom as  before this, as far as I can recall  I had never interacted with you on Wikipedia at all. I will try and deal with your further rseponses later, but for the moment I am out of time and need to do other things. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: I am occupied elsewhere for the next 24 hours but hope to deal with outstanding points then. Brianboulton (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have responded to some of the outstanding concerns, but this page is not my first priority and I have many other things to do. :::I will return when I can. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood; busy myself. In the "rights" discussion, if you will, I'm not questioning your commitment. The principal source of FA-related strife is the VESTED matter, the feeling that investment of labor/time on a page confers more perpetual control over it.  This is a human nature issue that all open-content projects have to wrestle with, but it's more difficult here because working on these articles feels more  to many than writing utility software (apparent even within WP – people squabble much harder over article content changes than over template code changes in most cases, even when no content policies are implicated in the former and it's just arbitrary copyediting). There is more tension of this sort than there needs to be, because GA and FA, as optional processes by volunteer reviewers and not governed by any GA/FA-specific policies, have unwisely tended to treat major contributors to an article as vested editors in many ways that other processes (RM, XfD, etc.) do not, and these editors have in turn had their perception shifted to treating this deference toward them being required, when OWN, BOLD, MERCILESS, EDITING etc. clearly all consistently contraindicate this. For people who don't dwell much in FA-land but work on entire categories, or on random articles, the attitude is an unexpected, "un-wiki" shock.  About a month ago I got coalled an "asshole" for not showing kowtowing deference to the good-ol'-boys club at another article, over a similar matter, and again mistaking criticism of the content for staining the honor of various someones who palimpsestuously wrote it however many years earlier or "destroying their hard work" (insert dramatic music here). I get over name-calling, but the "you don't have a membership card" nonsense is a real issue, also often arising in the "you have to get our wikiproject's permission first" form. (The GAN/FAC deference-to-main-contributors thing has other negative effects, the main one being suppression of broad community involvement in GA/FA for a cluster of reasons in the vein of "why should I work to try to get someone else's article to FA?", "why did you bring this to FA when you only started editing this page a week ago?", etc. – a nasty mix of "badge collecting" and "how dare you?"). If I seem unnecessarily strident about this stuff, it's because the problem has been worsening, markedly. As WP's editorial pool distills from an enormous vat of dabblers to a concentrated bottle of die-hards, the entire project is polarizing into generalists who seek to present WP as a consistent, massive work, and specialists who want to sharply distinguish their articles from others as unique works, and they're working together less and less. Many of the latter state outright things like "you didn't do the work to build this article, so you have no right to change anything in it" (in various exact phrasings, often specific to adding or removing something). From the former's perspective, this is indistinguishable from an OWN problem, even if the ultimate motivation for it is different. To mostly-generalists [on WP, I mean] like me, it looks like someone from a company's sporting goods department telling the marketing department it can go stuff itself when the MD shows up to discuss how to market the SD's products. It's totally dysfunctional, a mistaking of complimentary roles for territories to defend, as if it were the aerospace dept. telling the sports department how to design running shoes.  The OAS line is getting harder to make out, and I say that as someone who wanted to see the stewardship stuff covered there long before it was, since I play that role, gently, at various articles and more firmly at projectpages with WP stability implications.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

External input from those involved in the review processes
Pinging all those involved in the PR and FAC processes (which also gives the lie to the claim from one of the tag-team that this is a "single-editor article"), , , , , , , , ,. There have been a series of changes proposed to this article (with attempts to edit war them in) by an editor. Some of these have been accepted by Brianboulton, who has incorporated them; others have not come up to the required levels needed. Overnight—and I am entirely sure it's a miraculous coincidence—two friends of the editor have appeared to dispute the items still not changed. Deep within the walls of text above are the justifications for not accepting the remaining changes, along with counter arguments. All those pinged took part to some degree or other with the two community processes of PR and FAC. Did we all miss the points raised above, or is there justification is making the changes now. One last point, the original editor is so excised with things like being unable to add the US-comma style after dates, that he is threatening to take this article to FAR if he does not get his own way. – SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This only has anything to do with commas because you keep bringing it up; I conceded on the first day of this discussion that I didn't really care about them, and noted that dwelling on it is a red-herring move, which you are confirming by continuing to dwell on it to avoid the real issues. This is about PoV, guideline compliance, article content that has that have flow and context, linking names on first occurrence not a page-bottom, and mass-reverting. Thanks for effectively opening the FAR for me, though. It allows us to get at some of these questions without further ado.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Certainly suspicious, and this sort of "tag teaming" as LS would call it is a destructive force on here. I don't see any justification for the changes.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's hilarious, given that in virtually any discussion in which SchroCat is trying to get away with combatting against compliance with style guidelines, one of two other editors will almost invariably show up within minutes or hours and back him up. Is that suspicious? Maybe to someone, or maybe it just means that they follow each other's edits or just habitually overlaps a lot.  Sure enough, here's one of them now casting "certainly" aspersions about how "suspicious" it is that the most active MoS regulars might comment on the article that I  in all the ways to abuse quote boxes.  Dr. Blofeld also has an excuse: He was directly canvassed above by SchroCat.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Last time I dropped into FAC I was appalled at some the garbage being promoted, and said so. Let's not get beyond ourselves in congratulatory support for a status quo. Tony   (talk)  12:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're right about the "garbage", perhaps that's where the attention of the zealots should be directed, rather than here. I'm not averse to changes; most of the articles I've steered through the FAC process have adopted changes from "my" version, and a good thing too. But SMcLandish  reveals rather a lot about himself when, in the midst of one of his diatribes, he asks me: "And what makes you so special with regard to this article, exactly?" There, he puts into precise words both his ignorance of the process  of article writing, and his contempt towards content creators. There for all to see. Brianboulton (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Cute, but misrepresents the obvious meaning of the rhetorical question in its original context: Having done a lot of work on an article doesn't give you bona fide subject-matter credentials or special, perpetual editorial control rights over the article, much less against changes that have to do with formatting, guideline and policy compliance, content placed out-of-context, and other matters unrelated to the factuality and sourcing of the material.  We all understand this except some FA-focused editors, a few of whom seem unclear on this because FAC participants have unwisely treated them as if they do have special rights; they then get in a huff when the rest of the project, following WP:BOLD, WP:OWN, WP:MERCILESS, etc. do not also bend the knee.  It wasn't even a trick question. How could you somehow think it meant "did you do any work on the article" when the fact you did a lot of it is already obvious from edit history and your own statements?  Have you willfully chosen this misinterpretation just to enable you to accuse me of ignorance of article writing and contempt for content creators? Never mind that I just took something to GA recently (William A. Spinks, an article requiring very similar sorts of research to this one, including writing letters to the country library where the subject lived to see if they had any materials about him), and I am among the RfA !voters everyone complains is too focused on content creation levels.  Riiight.  Just because I haven't worked with  on an article on British scandals means I'm not a content creator?  See what I wrote above about this us-versus-them attitude and how it is markedly worsening as a split between FA-focused editors and everyone else.  Every concern I've brought about this article is a  kind of concern.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I was involved in the peer review and FAC. There is some discussion of commas in the PR (and no mention in the FAC), but this is not (as far as I can tell) about the same punctuation concerns raised above. It is in the MOS that punctuation style should follow the convention of the country of the article topic. So this is a British subject and the punctuation should follow British conventions.
 * Ruhrfisch comments

As for quote boxes, there was no discussion of them in the PR or FAC, so none of those reviewers felt there was an issue with them. I note that there is a RfC on quotations and associated templates here, which does not seem to be going anywhere fast. The MOS allows wiggle room for such quote boxes. When I look at other policies cited as supposed justification for the removal of the quote boxes like WP:NOTNEWS that says Wikipedia articles are not 1) Original reporting 2) News reports 3) Who's who or 4) a diary (and does not mention the supposed ban on newspaper-like style). The article has one fair use image and three pretty mundane free images. The boxes help break up large blocks of text, and each is placed in a section relevant to the material cited. In the case of the Bunnies letter box, it is placed in the section "Revelations" and includes the descriptive text ''In an effort to forestall this, Thorpe arranged for the publication of two of the letters in The Sunday Times, a paper generally sympathetic towards him. In one of these letters Thorpe referred to Scott by the pet name "Bunnies". The tone of this letter convinced readers and commentators that Thorpe had not been frank about the nature of the relationship. On 10 May 1976 he resigned as Liberal leader amid rising criticism ...''. The box shows some of the letter. The box and text work together. I fail to see the problem with the quote boxes. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 00:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You've only addressed one quote box of three, the one of least concern (the third in particular is an issue, because is steers readers to the views of one party in a legal case). But let's address that first one.  Given that the content of it is meaningless trivia to our readers, with the exception of the "Bunnies" sentence, which is already detailed in the prose, what is the point of including the long, indiscriminate excerpt?  Please read WP:NOTNEWS more closely; you seem to have missed the "Wikipedia is not written in news style" item (to be fair, it was mis-placed in the "original reporting" instead of "news report" segment after some restructuring a while back; I put it where it's supposed to be).  Quote boxes like this are not only news style, they're mostly low-end tabloid and magazine news style.  I've never seen any other encyclopedia use them.  Where is there a rule to do  to break up large blocks of text?  I could insert pictures of cartoon cats to do that, but I have a feeling you would object. :-)  The majority of an encyclopedia is large blocks of text; this is not an entertainment magazine. A desire to break them up doesn't enable using any means imaginable to do so, especially if there are other rules against some of them.  If text passages are too long, we break them up into sections, yet Brianboulton, in an effort to retain one of SchroCat's blanket reverts and thwart my attempt to put the Thorpe quotation in context, actually removed one, making the "large blocks of text" matter worse. All while himself using the "large blocks of text" justification as an excuse to keep quote boxes. Does not compute! Moving on, MOS does not permit such quote boxes. It says at MOS:BQ to use  or , to almost always avoid pull quotes (none of these quote boxes are pull quotes), and to not abuse pull quote templates as block quotation templates, which is precisely what is being done here in all three cases.  FAC and other processes tend to ignore quote boxes because some old FAs, pre-dating MOS:BQ, still have them (guess why? recalcitrance like what is being shown here in updating those pages), and certain editors push hard for the idea that anything appearing in any FA must be permitted in all FAs, in perpetuity, meanwhile most reviewers simply don't want to argue about such matters.  FAC (and GAN, PR, etc.) are all "staffed" by individuals with limited time and particular concerns, with MoS compliance usually low on the list.  The FA icon is not a magic "get out of guideline and compliance for ever" badge.  Anyone may edit an FA at any time to fix such problems.


 * To the extent anyone even cares about SchroCat's comma-related red herring: What's you're source for dropping these commas being a "British convention"? What convention are you citing, published by whom?  Someone else asked for proof of a similar assertion above, and all anyone could come up with was one British style guide suggesting they're optional, (as the American ones do); it does not demonstrate that it's a WP:ENGVAR matter. No one can come up with an American style guide  them either. The ENGVAR thing is a fantasy being advanced just to prevent edits for the sake of preventing edits.  How could it be an ENGVAR matter, when the inclusion of the commas is predicated on aiding clarity and ease of reading? Does clarity stop at a national border? Given that dropping any of these commas is optional, what are the cases for dropping them in particular instances on this page? ENGVAR is not blanket license to emulate British newspaper style (and dropping of the comma is primarily a journalistic practice, not a particularly British one). ENGVAR applies to arbitrary matters like colour versus color, when there is no non-dialect reason to prefer one over the other. There is a reason to prefer a comma that helps sentence parsing, so that should be the end of it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I was involved at the FAC. I have not done a lot of editing in recent months, so don't pretend to be up to speed on any recent changes in the MOS. That said, I believe the pull-out quotes are excellent and add the sense of engagement with the content. I think one of the risks with some style discussions at WP is that, in pursuing vigorous and specific application of guidelines and policies, they undermine the distinctive yet excellent character of individual articles, and the work of individual, and small groups of, editors. Perhaps the Thorpe affair article looks different to some others. However, that does not affect its quality, and i believe we should not pursue this further, and let Brian, McCandlish and others get back to more content creation. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hamiltonstone comments


 * So, PoV highlighting of the views of one party in a legal case, moving content to context-free locations (e.g. highlighting statements of a journalist in a totally non sequitur way, a party a and publication not mentioned in-context until almost the end of the article), and including full-text letters as trivia are fine, because the person pointing out these problems wasn't one of the main authors of the page, and it looks nifty, like a magazine article? There are three quotation boxes in the article; please describe in concrete terms what is "excellent" about each, in an encyclopedic context. I addressed one of them in reply to Ruhrfisch, above, so maybe start with the Thorpe case quote. How did integrating this quotation as a standard block quote into its context, per MOS:BQ, somehow do violence to the article?  I would bet that a review of the question by people not involved in FA horse-trading would overwhelmingly conclude that the quote works better the way I integrated into the prose, even if MOS:BQ did not exist.  Where does it say that policies and guidelines do not apply if an individual article's "distinctiveness" might be affected? Where is article-versus-article distinctiveness listed as a Wikipedia goal? How would such a concept be reconciled with the fact that we have dozens of guidelines and policies, and thousands of templates, the goals of which re WP-wide consistency?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not responding to most of that. I think others have dealt with some of those issues, I think others aren't issues that need this much attention. This whole discussion seems seriously out of proportion to the issue, and it bewilders me why it is this expansive. But one thing I will say is that it is perfectly fine that issues are being raised by someone who wasn't one of the main authors of the page... just as I also am not one of the main authors of the page. I don't even get how that is relevant, sorry - you are an experienced editor who is welcome; i just don't think these are serious issues with the article. Signing off here. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * My thanks to both Ruhrfisch and hamiltonstone for these comments. Brianboulton (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes; they help us focus on some obvious questions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Rationale, regarding quote boxes, "revelations", etc.
I just remembered I actually already wrote out an analysis of the abuse of quote boxes, in a user-talk discussion with and. Rather than repeat myself, I'll just copy-paste it with minor clarifications:

Looking over the Thorpe affair article, all the quote boxes are problematic (even aside from simply being against MOS:BQ, which is by itself sufficient to remove them). The first quote box in the page (of the "scandal sheet" journalist) is totally confusing, as it introduced non sequiturs that made no sense in the article until one reached the trial section, where the names were finally explained and linked. Definitely not how to write Wikipedia.

The second quote box (the letter) is completely devoid of context or contextual meaning. When someone arrives at this part of the page, their eye is practically forced to that box – THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING HERE! READ THIS EVEN IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE! – but it's excessively rambling trivia, and over-quotation that should be removed from the article entirely, per WP:OVERQUOTE, since it's already encyclopedically treated sufficiently in the main text. If it were kept, it should be quoted, inline, immediately after being mentioned in context. The template grabs attention, does not deliver (nothing it presents is of encyclopedic interest), then forces the reader to wade through the entire section (which should not be titled "Revelations", a tabloid journalism hook) to even try to figure out what relevance this could have to anything. It's just a total failure.

The third quote box is a pseudo-pullquote being inappropriately used again as a "cheap news" hook, a teaser soundbyte. "He said ? Wow, I'd better 'stay tuned' and read the rest! What juicy gossip!" It's not encyclopedic writing. This is patent news style, and as a matter of policy, WP is not written in news style. That quotation belongs inline as part of the narrative of the matter. There is no rational reason to (as usual) start with facts leading up to an incident, details of the incident, and various fallout of the incident being presented as a cohesive narrative, but then cut a key party's reaction out of this narrative and put it in a sidebar in a template to draw WP:UNDUE attention to it, and to blatantly promote one party's viewpoint in a legal dispute. Especially given that the allegations are likely mostly or entirely true (according to decades of investigative journalism), it's just plain wrong to have Wikipedia side with that party in a heavy-handed manner. Even aside from the policy problem, that template will be excluded by probably most WP:REUSE of this article, thus losing the content, and it appears in a kind of random place for users of screen readers or text-only browsers. It's actually in the wrong section (placed apparently for graphical layout "I'm a designer!" reasons), and pertains not at all to the aftermath of the trial, but to the nature of the evidence presented it and the defense's strategic reasoning, long before the judge even sent the jury to its deliberations. No experienced writer of encyclopedic prose, who was clear on how that differed from the style used by The Sun, etc., would do such a thing, much less revert-war against other editors trying to resolve the problem. It's pure marketing/PR/tabloid style, the loud presentation of controversy as a reader lure. Even if the material were made to appear in the main prose in context and was also separately quote-boxed – i.e., done as an actual pull quote – we would remove the quote box anyway, because it serves no purpose as a pull quote other than blatant bias and "steering" of the reader's perception, which is a problem under another policy. The quoted material is not pithy, memorable, a key "if you remember one thing about this page, make it this" point, famous, a summarization of what is at stake in the issue, or any other reason for a pull quote in encyclopedic material.

WP has evolved, like most media and large publications, some uses for sidebars (in our case, infoboxes, images with captions, and some navigation templates). An argument could be made that we need more them (e.g. tables of data supporting a technical article, the way newspapers and magazines often do, and which WP instead has as typically centered-in-mid-document tables), but if we did expand the formal role of sidebars (unlikely, or we would have done it years ago), it certainly would not be to draw attention to material that is trivia, to divorce direct quotations from their contexts, or (against neutrality policy) grandiosely to favor one party's view of a dispute or event. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that the quote boxes seem wholly inappropriate. It's hard to see what purpose they serve, other than dressing up the article to be more in the sensationalist style of the Daily Mirror.  Dicklyon (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree on this matter too. User:Brianboulton, why are you claiming special privileges because this article is featured? Erecting your own wall around an article challenges our fundamental role as curators of knowledge. Tony   (talk)  01:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No special privileges claimed beyond the provisions of WP:OAS. I am somewhat surprised, Tony, by your second comment; I imagined you were familiar enough with my work, over many years, not to make that kind of accusation. Brianboulton (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I much admire your work, Brian. Tony   (talk)  12:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that these quote boxes date from Brianboulton's version of the article, before anyone else had any input. I think it's time to bring this article more into line with wikipedia style and content norms.  Less sensational, less editorial conclusion making, etc., which looks like what SMcCandlish was trying to do.  The quote boxes are just one symptom of this largely single-editor article.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, Dick, another long-time editor I've never encountered before. Welcome to this discussion. You seeem to be implying that there is something not quite right about "Brianboulton's version of the article". In fact a great many articles are created and developed by a single dedicated editor who is either an expert on the subject or who researches it thoroughly. It is not right to disparage such efforts. Likewise, when you say "it's time to bring this article more into line with wikipedia style and content norms", what you mean is into line with your perception of these norms. You thereby place yourself above the community review processes which this article underwent, including FAC. Any article, whatever its review status, is capable of improvement, but that process has to be respectful of previous efforts. To begin the process by basically saying "this article is shit" is the wrong way of going about it. Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you're over-reacting to my (and SMcCandlish's) attempts to bring your excellent article into better compliance with WP style and a few grammar nits. Your article was cited by him at the RFC at MOS as an example of misuse of pull quotes.  That's hardly a condemnation of denigration of you or your contributions.  But your fight to keep it in your original styling is a bit striking, smacking of severe ownership issues.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not ownership to resist your and SMcandlish's attempts to impose your perceptions of what are wikipedia's style and content norms. Am I supposed just to say "OK, guys, you know best"? And the same to the next who comes along with "improvements"? Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Seriously guys, you're coming across as a bunch of bullies. "Pullboxes" are not worth arguments over. The article passed FAC, if it was really that much of a problem it wouldn't have passed. You're in grave danger of forcing Brianboulton to stop editing here. But this is how wikipedia treats its best editors. We're incredibly lucky to have somebody like him editing here. What happened to treating each other with respect? If it's not infoboxes, it's something else. It's reaching a point now where a group of people are systematically targetting articles by him or Tim. I don't know what the hell is wrong with you all, but it seems the better the work of an editor, the more chance they'll get a hard time here. Dozens of articles have passed FAC with "pullboxes". They can often provide significant value where it might not be appropriate to quote it in the text. Nothing wrong with them. If you all have an issue with them I suggest you propose a revision to the guidelines instead of targetting one editor.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait, are you saying that he's going to quit if an article that he created wholly on his own gets edited by others to bring it more into conformity with Wikipedia style? I do think and hope that that's not a correct characterization of the type of editor that Brianboulton is.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right, I wouldn't quit over that, though the proportion of my wiki time taken up with disputes like this means that my content creation activities have gone down the pan. I wonder, incidentally, what you think would be "a correct characterization of the type of editor" that I am? The Doc is raising a genuine concern that a small group of editors is being targeted over MoS and infobox issues; until recently I would have been sceptical,  and certainly wouldn't have thought myself as targeted, but now I'm beginning to wonder... Anyway, Doc, thank you for your concern. I suspect that this will run on a bit, but however it ends the world won't. On a different matter, Doc, would you care to sign up for [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brianboulton/Sandbox19 this initiative], concerning the mentoring of first-time FAC nominators? I was going to ask you anyway, but as you're here... Brianboulton (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Edits unrelated to quote boxes

 * Djcklyin, Your edit was poor and goes against BRD and STATUSQUO; your revert doubly so, and to characterise my edit with the edit summary "mass revert is beyond obnoxious" is beyond CIVIL. Do try and keep a civil tongue in your head when you DISCUSS the changes, rather than just edit warring to your preferred choice. – SchroCat (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Each of my 5 edits was done with care and thought. For you to dismiss them in bulk as "poor", as you did with SMcCandlish's edits before, is not acceptable.  You can use selective undo to send a message about which particular ones you find problematic, and have a chance to say why at the same time.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh FFS, and you continue to edit war to your preferred choice just because you say so? Yes, great, lets just ignore BRD, STATUSQUO, etc and act like a playground bully to arrogantly force what is a piss-poor edit onto the page. And if you used the 'care and thought' you claimed, then there is a competence issue, as you're are obviously not as good as you should be. -  SchroCat (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe I don't know what you mean by civility. Why are you now calling me names and attacking my competence instead of commenting on my edits as requested? I am happy to discuss any edits that you think are problematic; and am doing so on some above already.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because you are acting like a playground bully. Let's break this down so that even someone like you can understand: 1. Commas after dates are US commas, not needed. See the comments above from three people. The colon use is wrong and the semi-colon is grammatically correct (and how much care and thought went into capitalising the word after the punctuation ?) No need to change the page range numbers just because you want it, and the change from slash to hyphen is being discussed above so should remain until there is a consensus. THAT'S what's poor about your edit, but it's nice you tried hard and were so proud of your efforts. - SchroCat (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree a hyphen would be wrong; see En dash and MOS:DASH. This is a widely used style, and is WP's style.  Those arguing against don't even know what character is being discussed?  As SMcCandlish points out above, a full sentence after a colon would be capitalized.  The semicolon there is grammatically corrent, but in terms of meaning is wrong, not sending the signal that the following clause is the explanation of the prior one. This is broken. Dicklyon (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Capitalization after a colon is an American convention, not used in British English. See for example this source. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. SMcCandlish had asked previously if anyone had a guide that said that, but none had been offered until now (above he said "when a full sentence follows a colon, that sentence is capitalized. Have you ever seen a style and grammar guide that says otherwise?").  Dicklyon (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. University of Sussex: "A colon is not normally followed by a capital letter in British usage, though American usage often prefers to use a capital". Brianboulton (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Perfect. It is nice to be able to tell SMcCandlish that he's wrong on a matter of style, grammar, or usage.  It doesn't happen very often.  I'm just sorry y'all didn't respond sooner, so I took him to be right, as he usually is on such things.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not perfect, since the Sussex statement is false, though the situation is more complex than I suggested (I can't remember every style rule in everything!). American style guides generally never capitalize after a colon except when what follows is a full sentence, and British style guides also often advise this. On both side of the Pond, some prefer this capitalization only when two or more sentences follow the colon (the "two-sentence rule") Amusingly, The Guardian and Observer Style Guide actually addresses the more specific issue here, this desire to replace the colon with a semicolon (see their self-deprecating example of The Guardian itself making the error, at this page under the "colon" entry).  Due to construction, I don't have immediate access to my full style guide collection, but here are some random samples off the hard drive (and eliding obvious nitpicks we all already know like "except in the case of a proper name", or which aren't relevant, like when introducing a block quotation):


 * Universal:
 * I can't find any style guide that says not to capitalize a full-sentence quotation introduced after a colon.
 * US:
 * The Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed. (2010) &sect; 6.61. Lowercase or capital letter after a colon: "When a colon is used within a sentence ... the first word following the colon is lowercased.... When a colon introduces two or more sentences ..., when it introduces a speech in dialogue or an extract ..., or when it introduces a direct question, the first word following it is capitalized." This academic-style two-sentence rule is mirrored in the British equivalent publication, Oxford Style Manual (ex-Hart's Rules). I liken this to the "never capitalize any preposition, even a long one, in a composition title" rule also found almost exclusively in academic style guides. It's not something the typical editor will remember or consider sensible. But, so much for the theory that American style guides all say to capitalize after a colon for a [single] full sentence.
 * AP Stylebook (2016 ed.; Kindle ver., URL if you have the ebook in read.amazon.com: ) &sect; Punctuation guide – colon – "Capitalize the first word after a colon only if it is ... the start of a complete sentence."
 * The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (2015 ed., Three Rivers Press; .epub version 3.1) &sect; colon: "For consistency, capitalize what follows a colon if it is a complete sentence." Does not directly address the case of an independent clause that grammatically but not logically could form a sentence.
 * The Gregg Reference Manual, 10th ed. [there may be a newer one] (2005, NY: McGraw Hill, p. 51) &sect; 196: "Do not capitalize the first word after a colon if the material that follows cannot stand alone as a sentence." &sect; 197: It has the not-a-contextual-sentence exception The Guardian (below) and many others illustrate, but spelled out here: "Do not capitalize the first word of an independent clause after a colon if the clause explains, illustrates, or amplifies the thought expressed in the first part of the sentence ... [Example:] Essential and nonessential elements require altogether different punctuation: the latter should be set off by commas; the former should not."
 * The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, 11th ed. (Straus, et al; 2015, p. 32) &sect; Colons: Just throws up its hands. "If a complete sentence follows a colon, as in the previous example, it is up to the writer to decide whether to capitalize the first word. Although generally advisable, capitalizing a sentence after a colon is often a judgment call. Note: A capital letter generally does not introduce a simple phrase following a colon." It has the same rule about grammatically independent clauses that are not independent as found in Gregg, just in different wording. But disproves the assertion of "especially American" insistence on capitalizing sentences after colons; this book is widely used as a textbook in American high schools, colleges and universities, business schools, etc., as one of the more concise works in that market. (Aside: The list examples show use of the so-called "Oxford" comma, even for a three-item list of one-word items.)
 * The Elements of Style 4th ed. (Strunk & White, 2000, pp. 7–8) &sect; I.7.: Does not address the matter, and only illustrates use with lists and independent clauses tied closely to the preceding element.
 * National Geographic Style Manual (2016) &sect; : "With capitalization: Capitalize a complete sentence that follows a colon". Does not state or illustrate an exception for weak independent clauses that are grammatically but not semantically sentences; I guess one would have to read through their articles for examples.
 * ''United States Government Printing Office Style Manual (2008, p. 39) &section First words: "The first word of a sentence, of an independent clause or phrase, of a direct quotation, of a formally introduced series of items or phrases following a comma or colon, or of a line of poetry, is capitalized." This is an odd one. The comma example it gives is "The question is, Shall the bill pass?", but one would not find this style (rather, a colon here) in other style guides. The example it gives of "a formally introduced series" is "The vote was as follows: In the affirmative, 23; in the negative, 11; not voting, 3." Given what the US govt. considers "formal", I don't think it should be taken as recommending "I hate some vegetables: Eggplant, zucchini, and avocado", but it's hard to be certain.
 * UK:
 * Oxford Guide to Style 1st ed. [there is a newer one] (Ritter, 2002, Oxford U. Pr., pp. 125–126, &sect;5.5 Colon) Has the academic two-sentence rule: "Follow it with a capitalize letter only if [proper name stuff], or more than one (in US English any grammatically complete) sentence." Makes an exception for single-sentence paraphrases and introduced material: "Lords, ladies, and gentlemen: Allow me to present tonight's guest of honour. ... He asked a simple question: Who was first?"  This strikes me as too fiddly and confusing a set of rules for WP to work with.
 * Reuters Handbook of Journalism (2016, London; page "C") &sect; colons: "Put the word following a colon in lower case unless the next word is a proper noun, a direct quotation or the beginning of a sentence." So much for the "never capitalized in British writing" assertion (note also lack of "Oxford" comma).
 * Fowler's Modern English Usage, revd. 3rd ed. [there is a newer one] (Burchfield, 2000, Oxford U. Pr., p 159) &sect; colon: Does not address the matter, but talks about the history of the colon, changes in reasons to use one, and then illustrations of use for lists and for an independent clause that illustrates what came before the mark.
 * 'The Guardian and Observer Style Guide'' (2015, page "C") &sect; colon: It states no rule about capitalization, but begins with "colon: Use between two sentences," (i.e. capitalized things) "or parts of sentences, where the first introduces a proposition that is resolved by the second", and in the several paragraphs of examples, all the full-sentence-after-a-colon ones are capitalized, with the not-really-exception of a very short independent clause that can technically stand as sentence structurally but not contextually, "...to make it clear: they are not." This exception is common, including in the US.
 * The Economist Style Guide, 9th ed. [there is a newer one] (2005, p. 144) &sect; Punctuation – colons and capitals: "When a colon precedes a full sentence or question rather than a phrase, Americans sometimes follow the colon with a capital letter. The mystery was explained: The impala on the menu was an animal, not a car. The British would treat this as a simple sentence with only an initial capital letter." Seems to be an overstatement, but at least only one about British usage.
 * BBC News Style Guide, The Telegraph Style Book, and The Times Style and Usage Guide do not address it (looked under "colon", "punctuation", etc.).


 * Can look up more later, and this should eventually be used for our article on the colon. I remain convinced that directly sourcing internal style matters only to source internal style matters is a waste of editorial time, when simply agreeing to pick a standard is sufficient for WP to pick one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It looked to me like you were "wrong" in implying that nobody would find a guide suggesting lowercase there; but the Sussex ref was found, and included an example parallel to our situation under discussion: "She was sure of one thing: she was not going to be a housewife." Given the rest of your evidence, I agree with you that a capital, as in "She was sure of one thing: She was not going to be a housewife." would be more widely acceptable, even in BE.  Dicklyon (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've thanked Nikkimaria for his more selective edit, though he re-introduced at least one clear comma error (which has two possible fixes); so I'm trying the other one now and will see who prefers what on that. I apologize for the partial change of elided digits in page numbers; I think they should all be fixed, but am not able to find anything relevant in MOS:NUM, so I'll let that go; I didn't realize there were so many.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm a "she", by the way. The elision of page ranges is permissible so long as it is consistent, as it was here. On the question of process: whether you think a mass-revert was appropriate or not, changes under dispute should be discussed rather than mass-restored. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies on the wrong pronoun. My old American style is sadly not gender neutral.  Please show me where the elision of page number digits is discussed if you can find it. And I haven't mass restored anything that wasn't inappropriately mass reverted without comment. Dicklyon (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely nothing was inappropriately mass reverted. Your original edit was forcing back the same errors under discussion in a thread above. None of your edits was in any way an improvement – and that includes the rather poor brackets you've put in, which is also sub-standard in formal writing. – SchroCat (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that this entire page is dominated by a flood of dispute over mass reverting by you and one other editor who thinks it's his god[s]-given right to always do that to anyone for any reason, even over objections, and about 90% of that disputation could have been avoided by reverting selectively like any other thoughtful editor instead of like a bulldozer on autopilot, it's impossible to take this "absolutely nothing was inappropriately mass reverted" grandstanding seriously. At some point (long past, I would suggest), your personal desire to treat other good-faith editors like they're psycho vandals has to take a back seat to normal, productive collaboration.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * zzzzzzz Change the flaming record for crying out looud... over 22k characters of tedium in the last 24 hours of you trying to justify yourself/attack anyone who dares challenge you... and it's just white noise in the end. - Gavin (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See our nice article Psychological projection; the matches that started this little fire are in your own hand. Any more about this is better taken up in user talk; since multiple editors now object to the mass-reverting behavior at this article in particular, we can expect it to not resume here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet another editor who thinks it acceptable to comment on the mental state of another editor. When. You did you get a degree in psychology sufficient to make such a comment? When were you given exemption from WP:CIVIL that allowed such disgusting comments? If I was planning on sticking around I'd kick you straight to ANI, where I am sure you'd be given an appropriate block. Thankfully, the perspective of leaving means I realise just how little you mean in the grand scheme of things, and I actually feel rather sorry for your pathetic ramblings. They speak volumes in and of themselves. – Gavin (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Oddly, three editors have now restored "Bessell further maintained that in January 1969, Thorpe called him to a meeting ..." with the single comma acting as if it is delimiting a long introductory phrase. But it is not. This sentence needs zero or two commas, depending on whether the phrase "in January 1969" is intended as restrictive or not. I'd prefer non-restrictive with commas, but would accept the other way. Dicklyon (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, even I would use zero here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I find it dificult to work out what changes have been made or are being argued about, as commas are hard to spot in diffs and I'm as blind as a bat anyway. Could someone (you, Dick?) point out the specific sentences in which there is still dispute, and I'll try and resolve them to mutual satisfaction (unless that would be interpreted as "ownership"}. Brianboulton (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The one I quoted immediately above needs zero commas or two, not one (it presently stands with zero commas, which I did after Dr. Blofeld reverted the two-commas edit as "not correct"). The other cases of introductory phrases like "In month year ..." are sometimes better with a comma, too, especially when the next word is not something like "it" or "he".  Specifically, in "In April 1967 Scott ..." and "Early in December 1968 Bessell", both of read more easily with a comma, in my opinion; I realized opinions can differ on this, but to dismiss these edits as they have been seems very odd. Dicklyon (talk) 03:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm busy elsewhere for the next 24 hours but will pick up these points then. Brianboulton (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "Sufficiently convinced her". "Convinced" feels rather too binary for that; what about "sufficiently persuaded her"? Tony   (talk)  02:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, or leave out "sufficiently" since "convinced" can't really be modified. But I've gone with your suggestion. Note: I'm all over the place at the moment, and won't necessarily be able to pick up outstanding points on this page quickly. But I will get to them. Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I seem to have missed a whole bunch of stuff. In looking it over, I'm going to directly quote SchroCat back to himself: "Oh FFS, and you continue to edit war to your preferred choice just because you say so?" At some point, SchroCat needs to learn to address specific edits on their own merits (or lack thereof) instead of battlegrounding every dispute as SchroCat vs. everyone who dares touch  articles.  The latter approach gets very damned tedious and is a time-waste for everyone involved. About 90% of the material on this talk page could have been avoided if he'd said "SMcCandlish, I disagree with your comma changes and reverted that because X, and also reverted the quotation-boxed changes, per Y and Z", and took a similar reasoned approach to any issues he had with Dicklyon's edits. I guess this is hard when one has no X, Y and Z rationales that will hold up.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And about 100% of the unpleasantness on this talkpage might have been avoided if you, in the first place, had come here and said: "I am concerned about the use of quote boxes in this article for the following reasons: x, y and z. I also have a few general prose concerns: a, b, c, d etc". This would have begun a dialogue; it might anyway have descended into acrimony, but an approach showing respect both for WP:OAS and for your fellow-editors could not have been faulted. But you dismiss this collegial approach as "brown-nosing". You set the tone here, and much as I regret the nature of many of the subsequent exchanges, this derives from your initial incivility. And you continue in the same vein: eye-watering walls of text, every point contested to the nth degree, assertions of your absolute rightness in every case – have you no humility, no sense of proportion? I have said before that I am busy and my time is limited; when or whether I can find the time and energy to wade through your verbiage is questionable. I may have to leave the field to you by default, bored into submission. Life is too short, etc etc.  Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:EDITING, WP:BOLD, and WP:JUSTFIXIT. We do not want editors to feel that they have to "get permission" first, or raise pointless formal discussions about minor copyediting, before addressing issues on any page, and FAs are not magically exempt from this, even if we tend to be more careful with them than average.  Just the fact that you are still going on and on about being offended by my perceived tone in the original edit summaries (you are aware those are very short fields, suited for clipped explanations, while WP:REVTALK tells us not to try to use them as lengthy talk spaces?), despite protracted user talk discussion of the matter over a quite some time ago which should have been sufficient, suggests that this is a "how dare you?" personality dispute you won't let go of, not a principled "what is best for our readers?" matter.  We're all busy, with limited time. So?  I ignored this page for many days on the supposition that things would just work out, and, frankly, to let tempers cool.  I return to find the same ad hominem ranting by SchroCat, rather large-scale canvassing, personal attacks against anyone who followed links to this page from an RfC as being some kind of conspiracy,  mass-reverting and other editwarring over trivia, etc., engineered by someone who never left the discussion alone like you and I did. Yet somehow I'm magically to blame, at a distance, for everything you're unhappy about here? I have no trouble recognizing and admitting that I irritated you with "Fixing ridiculous abuse of pull quote template" in an edit summary (the only one of them that said anything like that at all), way back on Aug. 18, and already hashed over. That was, and if the word "ridiculous" (referring to out-of-context content placement, not an editor) in one edit summary is the excuse for the above wall of filibustering over every imaginable detail, I don't think I'm being the problem here. So, I respectfully decline your offer of the scapegoat position.  I shudder to think how many other editors, experienced and new alike, encounter this level of summoned-up, stonewalling hostility every other time they try to copyedit an article with FA icon on it or try to bring it into compliance with a guideline or policy. It's definitely the primary reason I do not work on FAs much, and mostly avoid FAC itself. 100× too much "me", almost no "we".
 * OK, I acknowledge that I have irritated you, and vice versa. I am not irritated now. I think your concern about editors encountering hostility every time they try to copyedit a featured article is perhaps exaggerated. I can't speak for others, but I have been responsible for a fair amount of featured content, none of which I watch over or monitor regularly. I revisit the articles  now and again  to repair urls, remove unreferenced trivia and other egregious additions, and if necessary to incorporate material from more recent sources; but that generally is it.  Meantime, each article will typically have been visited hundreds of times by other editors, without interference from me – the situation on this article is a rarity as far as I'm concerned. I don't intend to edit this page again, apart from the odd courteous acknowledgement,   until the Rfc  is closed and we have a clearer idea, perhaps, of what latitude will be formally permitted in the use of quote boxes. If you were  to show similar restraint, that might be helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think "every other time" probably means "about half the time", which may be about realistic for how often FA articles are too well defended by their creators. But a little exaggeration to make the point may also be present. Dicklyon (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. I'll go offer to close a wider discussion, and jot down some initial thoughts, at WT:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 16:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The main part of the above debate is in limbo, awaiting clarification from debates elsewhere as to whether the community accepts a broader interpretation on the use of quote boxed in articles than that suggested by the present MoS guideline. See, for example, RfC: What (if anything) to do about quotations, and the quotation templates? (begun 20 August 2016), and Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates (begun 4 September 2016). Further observations on these issues as they pertain to this article would more conveniently be addressed here  by opening new threads. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Jurors and contempt of court
Absent from the article is a follow-up case and change in the law. A juror gave an account of deliberations (including the impact of Bessell's deal) and it was published in the New Statesman, leading to an unsuccessful prosecution of the magazine for contempt of court. The Contempt of Court Act 1981 sought to codify the concept and included restrictions on jurors disclosing. Section 8 was repealed and replaced in 2015 but the restriction is maintained.  Guardian opinion pieces aren't the best sources though - is there anything on this in the main books on the case and/or Thorpe or indeed any articles discussing the background to the 1981 Act? Timrollpickering 21:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)